Aspartame

[In58men]

Is this scientifically proven to be bad for you? I drink flavored water and my peers flip shit over aspartame. I have done my research and I can not find anything factual. There are sites stating its bad and sites stating that it's not.


Do you guys have any other sources or factual evidence stating its not healthy?

[Dave Lane]

Google is your friend

[BillSelfsTrophycase]

Everything is bad for you

Never eat or drink anything for the rest of your life and you'll be fine

[BigMeatballDave]

Moderation.

Stay away from sugar. Thats the REAL killer.

[Fish]

The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.
.
.
.
A separate question is whether or not aspartame causes headaches in some people. While there is not a lot of specific data on this, there are case reports of aspartame triggering migraines in susceptible people. Migraineurs frequently have multiple food triggers, and there is a long list of foods known to be potential migraine triggers. This is not evidence for toxicity. So while evidence is lacking to demonstrate aspartame is a headache trigger, this is not implausible and not particularly worrisome.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17828671&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[Demonpenz]

I drink a 2 liter of diet coke a day. I am going to die of cancer, but it is a quality of life thing for me. I love the shit!

[aturnis]

I can fucking taste it. It's terrible. The only thing I can't taste it in is 0 cal Kool aid.

[Chiefshrink]

I've always heard that when consumed it turns into a mild form of formaldehyde. :eek:

But like you, I have heard both sides and really don't know what to believe. So I will error on the side of caution. It sucked giving up Diet Dr.Pepper. I love that stuff:thumb:

[BigMeatballDave]

I can fucking taste it. It's terrible. The only thing I can't taste it in is 0 cal Kool aid.

If its mixed with other artificial sweeteners, its not bad.

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

I died of aspartame poisoning last night. This post is just a nerve twitch.

[Shaid]

Here's my opinion on it. Aspertame was not approved by the FDA and I beleive the head of the FDA even said something along the lines of you may as well feed people poison. Then Reagan ran for office and had one major supporter - the manufacturer of aspartame. The day after he was in office he installed a new FDA head who immediately reopened the aspartame discussion. There was a 5 person panel to approve it. Once it was obvious it was going to be denied, he installed a 6th person. It was a tie vote and the head of the FDA was the tiebreaker. I'm sorry, but when you need to resort to political games to get your product approved, I'm gonna bet you aren't all that safe.

[DeezNutz]

Your peers are women.

[Lumpy]

I don't drink that much soda, but Gonzo does.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/15/this-artificial-sweetener-shown-to-produce-cancer-in-rats.aspx

Private Study Finds Aspartame Leads to Huge Tumors...

Over a 2.5-year period, Innes-Brown performed a set of meticulous and detailed animal experiments, documenting the horrific effects of using aspartame liquid comparable to diet soda. She has done us all a great favor by publishing the findings of her private experiments, as she provides visual documentation of the detrimental health effects of aspartame.

Victoria first raised a total of 108 rats. Sixty of them, 30 males and 30 females, were used as the experimental group. The remaining 48 rats, 24 males and 24 females, were used as controls. Since she's not a food manufacturer, she wasn't able to purchase pure aspartame, which is typically what researchers would use for their studies. Instead, she put NutraSweet, in a daily dose comparable to 14 cans of diet soda per day for the females, and 13 cans for the males, directly into the water of the aspartame group.

Although that sounds like an awful lot, this amount is within the acceptable daily intake (ADI), which was set at 50 mg per kilogram by the FDA. It's also within the range of what some people actually consume daily.

After feeding the rats NutraSweet daily for 30 months, a whopping 67 percent of the female rats developed tumors the size of golf balls or larger! Some of the tumors were the size of the palm of her hand. Twenty-one percent of the males on aspartame developed tumors.

You can view the photos for yourself here … http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/09/victoria-innessbrowns-aspartame-experiment.aspx

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

twitch....... twwwwitch....... could maybe use some CPR here............

[Shaid]

Here you go. Tons of info on how aspertame became legal. People making money. Apparently it was causing brain tumors, etc. Crazy that people get away with this stuff.

http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm

[BigMeatballDave]

Yet MJ remains illegal...

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

I'm glad no one cares about my death. Why do you all hate me?

[Lumpy]

twitch....... twwwwitch....... could maybe use some CPR here............

LMAO

[Lumpy]

I'm glad no one cares about my death. Why do you all hate me?

I giggled. :shrug:

:D

[DeezNutz]

I don't drink that much soda, but Gonzo does.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

So 79% of the male rats were cool? OK.

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

I giggled. :shrug:

:D

As long as Lump is in my corner I'm ok. The rest of you bastards can kiss my dead ass.

[DeezNutz]

As long as Lump is in my corner I'm ok. The rest of you bastards can kiss my dead ass.

I'll take your casino cash.

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

I'll take your casino cash.

What do I have 6 bucks? I gave it all to someone for winning a bet on a Royals score recently when I had eleventy billion. It's yours though.

[Lumpy]

So 79% of the male rats were cool? OK.

I find it odd that 21% of the males and 67% of the females developed tumors. That's an incredibly large gap. Of course, considering that this research was done on rats, that might not be the case w/ humans.

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

I find it odd that 21% of the males and 67% of the females developed tumors. That's an incredibly large gap. Of course, considering that this research was done on rats, that might not be the case w/ humans.

I died of a tumor caused by aspertame. Last night.


Twitch....

[DeezNutz]

I find it odd that 21% of the males and 67% of the females developed tumors. That's an incredibly large gap. Of course, considering that this research was done on rats, that might not be the case w/ humans.

Women are weaker. :)

[Lumpy]

Women are weaker. :)

Uh huh. We're all just a bunch of delicate little flowers w/ our 2 X chromosomes and bleeding hoo-haws.

How's about ya take that, "women are weaker", shit away from me. :p

[BigMeatballDave]

I died of a tumor caused by aspertame. Last night.


Twitch....

Dude. Die quietly.

Nothing more annoying than a babbling dying man...

:)

[BigMeatballDave]

Uh huh. We're all just a bunch of delicate little flowers w/ our 2 X chromosomes and bleeding hoo-haws.

How's about ya take that, "women are weaker", shit away from me. :p

Weak argument.

We must stand up to pee and we have to lift the lid.

[DeezNutz]

Uh huh. We're all just a bunch of delicate little flowers w/ our 2 X chromosomes and bleeding hoo-haws.

How's about ya take that, "women are weaker", shit away from me. :p

Your words.

(ducks)

[BigMeatballDave]

Go have your period in a shark tank...

[Lumpy]

Weak argument.

We must stand up to pee and we have to lift the lid.

Childbirth. :)

[Lumpy]

Go have your period in a shark tank...

I'm afraid the sharks will need to wait for about 20 days.

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

I'm so tired of women using the childbirth thing to prove they're tougher. You think we want you to get pregnant and huge? You think that's what we want you to look like and act all crazy for 9 months?

We want you to be skinny and have tight asses and left us piiyb and tell us you like it and we want you to beg for a facial. That's what we want. Kids are your thing.

:)

[Lumpy]

I'm so tired of women using the childbirth thing to prove they're tougher. You think we want you to get pregnant and huge? You think that's what we want you to look like and act all crazy for 9 months?

We want you to be skinny and have tight asses and left us piiyb and tell us you like it and we want you to beg for a facial. That's what we want. Kids are your thing.

:)

Pfft. Here we go! :rolleyes:

As far as getting "huge", I shot up from 115 lbs to 160 lbs. The majority of that was gone within a month after giving birth. Sooooo, I don't want to hear it, mister!

I'm on my way back to being skinny and having a tight ass again, (only 10-15 more pounds to go). I won't comment on the other stuff. LMAO

Now, get back on topic, fools!

[BigMeatballDave]

I remember when my son was born, his mother warned me not to ask the doctor to put some extra stitches in...

LOL

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

Pfft. Here we go! :rolleyes:

As far as getting "huge", I shot up from 115 lbs to 160 lbs. The majority of that was gone within a month after giving birth. Sooooo, I don't want to hear it, mister!

I'm on my way back to being skinny and having a tight ass again, (only 10-15 more pounds to go). I won't comment on the other stuff. LMAO

Now, get back on topic, fools!

You know I posted that to get you to react and be all Lumpy and shit.

My kid is the best thing that's ever happened to me.

Call it setting you up.

:)

[Lumpy]

I remember when my son was born, his mother warned me not to ask the doctor to put some extra stitches in...

LOL

"Happy Daddy Stitches" - I requested those and my doctor laughed. Then she realized I was serious. LMAO

This isn't getting back on topic. It doesn't matter though, I'm going to bed. :D

[Lumpy]

You know I posted that to get you to react and be all Lumpy and shit.

My kid is the best thing that's ever happened to me.

Call it setting you up.

:)

I know you dig the all Lumpy and shit, that's why I replied. :)

G'night!

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

I know you dig the all Lumpy and shit, that's why I replied. :)

G'night!

Guilty... buds and shit.

[rtmike]

Everything is bad for you

Never eat or drink anything for the rest of your life and you'll be fine

The FDA just announced that not eating or drinking anything is hazardous to your health.

Bite me if it's a repost. :D

[Braincase]

Searle owned the patent on aspartame when it was going through approval by the FDA. Initially, it was denied approval (twice?) due to the fact that it broke down chemically at 90 degrees. Eventually, they changed policy makers at the FDA and the new group approved aspartame, and a select group of people made lots and lots of money. Who was the CEO of Searle during this period of time? I'll give you a hint - his initials are "Donald Rumsfeld".

[Saulbadguy]

I've always heard that when consumed it turns into a mild form of formaldehyde. :eek:

But like you, I have heard both sides and really don't know what to believe. So I will error on the side of caution. It sucked giving up Diet Dr.Pepper. I love that stuff:thumb:

Dumbass.

[TimeForWasp]

If I consume enough Aspartame, it will become as part of me.

[The Rick]

I don't drink that much soda, but Gonzo does.

:eek: :eek: :eek:
Sorry...but if there's one whack job I can't stand, it's "Doctor" Mercola. Maybe it's just because my mother-in-law and brother-in-law swear by him and are constantly sending us links to his articles. I just have a hard time believing something who tells you practically everything is evil, but you can buy his bottle of snake oil for $19.95 and make everything all better.

:shake:

[Lumpy]

Sorry...but if there's one whack job I can't stand, it's "Doctor" Mercola. Maybe it's just because my mother-in-law and brother-in-law swear by him and are constantly sending us links to his articles. I just have a hard time believing something who tells you practically everything is evil, but you can buy his bottle of snake oil for $19.95 and make everything all better.

:shake:

There's no need for you to be sorry. You have the right to your own opinions. :)

I was just doing some research, stumbled upon that article, and posted it because it was on-topic. IMO, I find it highly doubtful that any of the results of their tests were fabricated. However, with the amount of Aspartame that was consumed by the rats, this only confirms my belief that moderation is key.

[headsnap]

Moderation.

Stay away from sugar. Thats the REAL killer.

:shake:

[Just Passin' By]

Moderation.

Stay away from sugar. Thats the REAL killer.

There's no way that's true. Everyone knows that O.J. is still looking for the real killer.

[Saul Good]

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

[Saul Good]

http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/antpoison.asp

[Saul Good]

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cancerupdate.asp

[Saul Good]

http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/health/article/No-cancer-risk-found-in-diet-soda-s-aspartame-1200267.php

[Lumpy]

I did a little more research. The following is an excerpt from http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/aspartame

Does aspartame cause any other health problems?
Complaints of various health issues have circulated since aspartame first appeared on the market in the 1980s. But for most people, no health problems have clearly been linked to aspartame use.

Phenylketonuria (PKU)

Phenylketonuria is a rare genetic disorder (present at birth) in which the body can't break down phenylalanine, an amino acid found in many foods. Levels of phenylalanine can build up in the blood, which prevents other important chemicals from getting to the brain. Unless phenylalanine intake is severely limited, children with PKU suffer from abnormal brain development.

PKU is usually detected in babies by a routine blood test shortly after birth. People with PKU need to follow a phenylalanine-restricted diet. This is especially important in children, whose brains are still developing.

Because phenylalanine is a component of aspartame, it's important that people with PKU limit their intake of aspartame-containing foods and drinks.

[jegarst]

Is this scientifically proven to be bad for you? I drink flavored water and my peers flip shit over aspartame. I have done my research and I can not find anything factual. There are sites stating its bad and sites stating that it's not.


Do you guys have any other sources or factual evidence stating its not healthy?


Aspartame is perfectly safe used as directed and has been found so by all the world's relevant regulatory agencies. Aspartame is perhaps the world's safest substance. If you want to read more about aspartame safety, check out my post at www_heraldonline_com/2012/07/17/4119320/the-risks-and-benefits-of-using_html, where _ replaces a dot. This is especially relevant if you believe you react to aspartame--it actually isn't aspartame, but that reaction may be telling you something very important about your own biochemistry.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

[Rain Man]

Aspartame is perfectly safe used as directed and has been found so by all the world's relevant regulatory agencies. Aspartame is perhaps the world's safest substance. If you want to read more about aspartame safety, check out my post at www_heraldonline_com/2012/07/17/4119320/the-risks-and-benefits-of-using_html, where _ replaces a dot. This is especially relevant if you believe you react to aspartame--it actually isn't aspartame, but that reaction may be telling you something very important about your own biochemistry.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)


I dunno. I looked at that post and didn't think it offered enough scientific evidence. Aside from the Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition, what qualifications do you hold?

[Ace Gunner]

Stevia

[Hammock Parties]

I don't drink or smoke or do drugs.

Fuck you, I'm drinking Diet Dr. Pepper.

[Saul Good]

I dunno. I looked at that post and didn't think it offered enough scientific evidence. Aside from the Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition, what qualifications do you hold?

Hard to take someone seriously when they have such a low post count.

[Saulbadguy]

Hard to take someone seriously when they have such a low post count.

Google his name. He is the ultimate aspartame message board white knight.

[Rain Man]

Hard to take someone seriously when they have such a low post count.

Yeah, I'm going to need see more posts and more rep before I can trust his opinions on aspartame.

[jegarst]

I dunno. I looked at that post and didn't think it offered enough scientific evidence. Aside from the Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition, what qualifications do you hold?

I hold far greater qualifications that those suggesting harm, none of whom have documented risk assessment nor toxicology skills). But these people profit from books (Blaylock, Roberts, and now Monte), false treatments (Hull), and other misleading innuendo (Martini). Right now they are trying to influence public opinion in Europe, because the EFSA is supposed to release another investigation into aspartame in September. The only problem is nothing has changed, so why should any opinion?

There has never been any substantiated, reproducible evidence of any harm from aspartame, cancer included. The US and other governments have wasted more money on this than misguided concern than it has on virtually any other substance known to man. Corn contains more dangerous components. To demonstrate this, two points will be made.

First, the fundamentals of toxicology (the science of poisons) say “everything is toxic.” And that everything includes aspartame and all its three decomposition products, aspartate, phenylalanine, and methanol. But where the aspartame critics fail to understand and then mislead the reader is that dose is paramount. Everything about toxicology is dose; the words ‘toxic’ or ‘poison’ mean nothing without a specific dose for that substance. And dose alone separates a food/drug from a poison. For example botulinum toxin (Botox), which is the most toxic substance known (see Wikipedia), is used extensively in cosmetic procedures. Highly toxic cyanide is found in plant products we all consume; however, cyanide is readily detoxified by a cyanide-specific enzyme, rhodanese, at those doses (see Wikipedia). In contrast ‘low-toxicity’ water drowns hundreds of people yearly. So the informed reader should understand that words like toxic or poison that fill all the anti-aspartame literature are irrelevant. That is any claim a chemical substance is “toxic” or a poison is by itself is absolutely MEANINGLESS. Such claims MUST include a specific toxic response at a specific dose. Aspartame critics cannot now do this and never could! That is part of the reason why they cannot get any regulatory agency to even listen to their long-failed arguments.

Second, the fact is that aspartame is perfectly safe used as directed. However, there appears to be a defined class of people for which labeling might be insufficient. And that class of people is those with an ongoing insufficiency of the vitamin folic acid (and/or vitamin B12). Actually folate (B12) deficiency can explain all the "highly cited, but incorrect 92 symptoms attributed to aspartame toxicity". However, the dilemma here is that the people with this insufficiency are often unaware of it. That fact stems either from direct deficiency or because of a genetic requirement for more folate/vitamin B12. These people often, but not always display related issues like hyperhomocysteinemia (too much homocysteine in their blood). Homocysteine is a potent and true excitotoxin that poses a serious human health hazard that is detoxified by folate, see wikipedia]. Some aspartame users repeatedly get headaches after using aspartame, so they blame aspartame consumption for their acute headache, for example. But really they are at risk for these bigger problems for these other personal reasons that exist silently whether or not they use aspartame. Folate deficiency and lesser so vitamin B12 are directly connected to a large body of diseases, including breast and other types of cancers, etc. And folate insufficiency is still a real world problem both alone and because of polymorphism-associated genetic predispositions [requiring extra folate], including one directly associated with headache; Google PubMed, then type 19619240 in the search line.

The connection between aspartame and folate deficiency arises because aspartame contains a methyl ester; methanol is released upon GI hydrolysis. The purpose of the vitamin folate is to recycle methanol’s oxidation products formaldehyde and formate into methyl groups. Deficiency can lead to the same "symptoms" as methanol toxicity---but only in people that are otherwise deficient in this vitamin. Methanol from untainted food consumption alone never leads to poisoning, but folate insufficiency amongst a segment of the population can have the longer term consequences mentioned in the previous paragraph. Vitamin B12 takes the folate-generated methyl groups and transfers them to homocysteine making a vital amino acid called methionine. Too little of either causes the same or similar ultimate problems.

These facts explain everything about the whole "internet conspiracy" theory suggesting aspartame is unsafe. But you have to realize too that there is more methanol (read that as formaldehyde) in juice drinks (pectin is a polymeric methyl ester) than in aspartame drinks. And there is twice the amount of formaldehyde generated from caffeine than from the same molecular amount of aspartame. So again the problem is one of folate (B12) deficiency still being a human health problem, even after the US, Canada, and Chile required grain product folate fortification starting in 1998. That date is relevant also because all viable concerns with aspartame were raised before that date. But the frank malformations and teratology in infants of folate deficient mothers is what led to forced folate fortification to combat this widespread folate deficiency. Those issues have dropped dramatically amongst the population, since that action. They have not been eliminated because of these genetic issues (called folate polymorphisms) in up to 40% of the population; these make some people require even more folic acid than others.

But the take-home message here is that aspartame toxicity is a myth. All papers showing any issue with aspartame failed adequately to ensure folate sufficiency in either their animal work or use populations (including diabetics and others), most of whom have a documentable ongoing folate-deficiency in the first place. [The antidiabetic drug metformin actually reduces folate, Google PubMed, then type 21896879 in the search line].

Aspartame critics often cite work by Soffritti et al in support of their argument. However, regulatory agencies pay no attention. While their reasons relate to specific health of test rats, the real fact is that the health of those rats was affected by fundamental errors in their work. The 2006-2008 work by Soffritti et al is loaded with as many as five fatal, scientific errors. This list includes the use of a type of rat (Sprague-Dawley) known to become folate deficient at one year of age; but their experiment lasted three years. And this doesn’t even mention Soffritti's use of a folate deficient diet for those three years. [FYI, this same error was originally made by aspartame makers and went unrecognized for decades. That accident is what helped make this into a conspiracy theory. Later work used corn diets high in folate and from then on problems could not be reproduced.] Still other fundamental scientific errors therein totally dismiss their work. And that includes work with other substances beside aspartame. FDA is aware of these issues and will not ban aspartame based on an OVERWHELMING scientific assessment of safety. FYI, this whole folate insufficiency issue in methanol metabolism has been known for roughly four decades, because of the work of Tephly (Google PubMed, then type 1997785 in the search line. The genetic polymorphism aspects linkable to folate deficiency issues are relatively new, however.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

[Saulbadguy]

John, I suggest that Matt Cassel is a shitty quarterback because he ingests aspartame.

Confirm/Deny?

[jegarst]

John, I suggest that Matt Cassel is a shitty quarterback because he ingests aspartame.

Confirm/Deny?

I actually have no idea whether he uses aspartame or not. But I had two thoughts for you.

First, perhaps he is a 'shitty' quarterback because he doesn't use aspartame. Wikipedia's Diet Pepsi entry contains a line about two not so 'shitty' quarterbacks who used aspartame. "In 1985, immediately following Super Bowl XIX, the game's respective quarterbacks, Joe Montana and Dan Marino, met in a hallway of what appeared to be a football stadium. Montana of the winning team, buys Marino a Diet Pepsi, and Marino promises to buy the drink the next time.[33]"

Second, he may be 'shitty' for the Chiefs, but he also might help my Alma Mater KU move out of a projected last place in the Big 12 Conference, quoting my hometown Wichita newspaper's website at kansas.com/2012/07/19/2413703/k-state-sixth-kansas-last-in-big.html), if you sent him to Lawrence.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

[Saulbadguy]

Wow

[jegarst]

I don't drink that much soda, but Gonzo does.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Unfortunately the darkened quote didn't get lifted, but I will respond to it anyway. Innes-Brown is a reporter and an amateur. The hardest thing in science is finding the appropriate control for an experiment. She can be excused, but Soffritti et al performed the same experiment and his job was even worse; both are invalid. Here is why.

Because methanol is released from aspartame during degradation, the control that both used (water) is invalid. We all ingest methanol in fruit juice and other products daily. Then as with aspartame, some of the methanol degrades folate, but we take in more in vitamins the next day. But [you cannot degrade a vitamin in any valid experiment], so without an equivalent amount of methanol in the water, the experiment is automatically biased toward degrading folate, yet only in the treated animals--hence the experiment is invalid. In this case it makes no difference what the type of rat--folate will be degraded in the treated animals, but not replaced equally and the experiment will reflect folate-deficiency induced tumors, of which there are many. Congratulations Victoria you again proved why folate is a vitamin.

As to the 'professional work' by Soffritti et al, his experiment was even more flawed and less valid. Unlike Victoria he used a three year (lifetime) study, but his Sprague-Dawley rats are deficient in folate genetically by 1 year (jn.nutrition.org_content_132_6_1357.full.pdf+html ; replace underline with slash). So he gave his rats two more years to develop tumors he could blame on aspartame. No wonder nobody can reproduce this work.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

[Bugeater]

WTF is going on here?

[Saulbadguy]

WTF is going on here?

Hackers

[Saul Good]

WTF is going on here?

Something about quality replica jerseys at low, low prices...

[Buck]

I actually have no idea whether he uses aspartame or not. But I had two thoughts for you.

First, perhaps he is a 'shitty' quarterback because he doesn't use aspartame. Wikipedia's Diet Pepsi entry contains a line about two not so 'shitty' quarterbacks who used aspartame. "In 1985, immediately following Super Bowl XIX, the game's respective quarterbacks, Joe Montana and Dan Marino, met in a hallway of what appeared to be a football stadium. Montana of the winning team, buys Marino a Diet Pepsi, and Marino promises to buy the drink the next time.[33]"

Second, he may be 'shitty' for the Chiefs, but he also might help my Alma Mater KU move out of a projected last place in the Big 12 Conference, quoting my hometown Wichita newspaper's website at kansas.com/2012/07/19/2413703/k-state-sixth-kansas-last-in-big.html), if you sent him to Lawrence.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

Your and idiot.

[Lumpy]

Unfortunately the darkened quote didn't get lifted, but I will respond to it anyway. Innes-Brown is a reporter and an amateur. The hardest thing in science is finding the appropriate control for an experiment. She can be excused, but Soffritti et al performed the same experiment and his job was even worse; both are invalid. Here is why.

Because methanol is released from aspartame during degradation, the control that both used (water) is invalid. We all ingest methanol in fruit juice and other products daily. Then as with aspartame, some of the methanol degrades folate, but we take in more in vitamins the next day. But [you cannot degrade a vitamin in any valid experiment], so without an equivalent amount of methanol in the water, the experiment is automatically biased toward degrading folate, yet only in the treated animals--hence the experiment is invalid. In this case it makes no difference what the type of rat--folate will be degraded in the treated animals, but not replaced equally and the experiment will reflect folate-deficiency induced tumors, of which there are many. Congratulations Victoria you again proved why folate is a vitamin.

As to the 'professional work' by Soffritti et al, his experiment was even more flawed and less valid. Unlike Victoria he used a three year (lifetime) study, but his Sprague-Dawley rats are deficient in folate genetically by 1 year (jn.nutrition.org_content_132_6_1357.full.pdf+html ; replace underline with slash). So he gave his rats two more years to develop tumors he could blame on aspartame. No wonder nobody can reproduce this work.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

I'm guessing that you hit a lot of boards, huh? That's really sad. LMAO

[Bugeater]

Wow, some really weird stuff comes up when you Google this guy's name and Aspartame.

[Bugeater]

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/09/24/90-of-people-to-be-removed-a-timeline-of-world-population-control/


90% Of People To Be Removed: A Timeline Of World Population Control


The Guide Stones were erected in 8 languages stating more than 90% of the population needs to be removed. It was done anonymously although there are reports that believe these were erected by Rockefeller people.

It’s just unfortunate that those in power who want the New World Order (http://www.pakalertpress.com/category/new-world-order/) and population reduction (http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/population-reduction/) can help prevent aspartame from being banned, but we have to keep trying and keep warning. Like Dr. Maria Alemany told me in Barcelona who did the Trocho Study, proving the formaldehyde from the free methyl alcohol embalms living tissue and damages DNA), aspartame will kill 200 million, maybe already has.
‘
Then you have the interaction with drugs and reports say over 100,000 die from drug interaction, even of properly administered prescription drugs (http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/prescription-drugs/). To make matters worse is that aspartame damages the cardiac conduction system and causes sudden death. It’s hard to believe the FDA stands by and does nothing even though it has been proven that aspartame embalms consumers and causes sudden cardiac death.
So, we have the facts. We know its happening. We just have to do what we can to protect as many as we can. With Ajinomoto changing the name to AminoSweet, and now trying to get approved Avantame, the dire need to stop this insanity is escalated. It makes you think of the scripture, “Unless these days were cut short no flesh would survive.”



The George Guide stones are not too far from us and Don and I did see them and take pictures. Fact is fact, no denying… If you would like when you’re here, stay an extra day, we’ll show you.


It’s a sad commentary. We just have to keep warning. Proverbs 24:11 says: “Deliver those who are being taken away to death; and those staggering to the slaughter O may you hold them back. 12. In case you should say: “Look! We did not know of this,” will not he himself that is making an estimate of hearts discern it, and he himself that is observing your soul know and certainly pay back to earthling man, according to his activity?”


The fact of genocide has already been proven. Dr. Bowen showed this in the article, “Aspartame Murders Infants, Violates Federal Genocide Law”.
http://www.rense.com/general/asp.htm Also, consider Dr. Bill Deagle’s articles about this. You’ve seen 8 deaths from aspartame in your own family. A lot of people don’t know this is the culprit. With physicians not being told about drug interaction, and vaccine interaction, except in Doctors H. J. Roberts and Russell Blaylock’s books, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, and Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, medicine becomes a dangerous practice. I just got a call from a man who almost hemorrhaged to death because he was on aspartame and given Coumadin.
The People’s Pharmacy did write, “Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet) is an artificial sweetener that may increase bleeding time, (Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Feb and May, 1998).


Although this interaction is controversial, we would encourage anyone consuming aspartame and taking Coumadin to monitor the impact on bleeding very carefully.” Over the years I’ve also heard of many deaths where aspartame and Coumadin were involved.


Thanks for passing it on.

[Rain Man]

Wow, some really weird stuff comes up when you Google this guy's name and Aspartame.


He's got a theory about Matt Cassel that holds promise, though.

Mr. John E. Garst, Ph.D., I have a question for you regarding your earlier Matt Cassel post. Can you provide any projections on Matt Cassel's quarterback rating and other key statistics if he ingested aspartame? And do you know if aspartame is a banned substance in the NFL? For some reason I'm thinking that's the drug that Brian Cushing and Darrell Russell suspended for, but I don't recall. And Russell eventually died.

[bevischief]

All I now for sure is I can taste it and it makes me sick.

[Saulbadguy]

Wow, some really weird stuff comes up when you Google this guy's name and Aspartame.


He's committed to his job.

[jegarst]

He's got a theory about Matt Cassel that holds promise, though.

Mr. John E. Garst, Ph.D., I have a question for you regarding your earlier Matt Cassel post. Can you provide any projections on Matt Cassel's quarterback rating and other key statistics if he ingested aspartame? And do you know if aspartame is a banned substance in the NFL? For some reason I'm thinking that's the drug that Brian Cushing and Darrell Russell suspended for, but I don't recall. And Russell eventually died.

I have no projections.
I do know that aspartame is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by all the relevant governmental regulatory agencies in the world and all US states. That would make any effort to ban this by the NFL, lawsuit worthy. For more on him, see (no www): beatsc.com/?page_id=3

"Darrell Russell (Accused of drugging his friend Oceania Vaillancourt with GHB [the date-rape drug], and videotaping her while she was .... Brian Cushing (Long-suspected Steroid freak who finally got busted after his Rookie year in the NFL." from Google

John E. Garst

[Bugeater]

John, what are your thoughts on the article in post #72?

[rambleonthruthefog]

a great shel silverstein song for your pleasure

I was waitin' in Rosie's Restaurant
When the waiter came up and said, "What do you want?"
I looked at the menu -- it looked so nice
Till he said, "Let me give you some advice"
He said, "Spaghetti and potatoes got too much starch,
Pork chops and sausage are bad for your heart.
There's hormones in chicken and beef and veal.
Bowl of ravioli is a dead man's meal.
Bread got preservatives, there's nitrites in ham,
Artificial coloring in jellies and jam.
Stay away from donuts. Run away from pie.
Pepperoni pizza is a sure way to die.
Sugar rots your teeth and make you put on weight.
But artificial sweetener's got cyclamates.
Eggs got cholesterol. There's fat in cheese.
Coffee ruins your kidneys, and so does tea.
Fish got mercury. Red meat is poison.
Salt's gonna send your blood pressure risin'.
Hot dogs and bologna got deadly red dyes.
Vegetables and fruits are sprayed with pesticides."

So I said, "What can I eat that's gonna make me last?"
He said, "A small drink of water in a sterilized glass."
And then he stopped and he thought for a minute,
And said, "Never mind the water -- there's carcinogenics in it."
So I got up from the table and walked out in the street
Realizing there was nothing I could eat.
I ain't eaten for a month, and I'm feeling fine...
'Cause he did not mention
Beer, whiskey, women and sweet red wine.

[jegarst]

I respond to as many of these false posts as is feasible. FYI, I am a retired professor from a major university; I have never made one penny writing these posts either, unlike all the critics who write books, etc. etc. I am committed not just to the truth about aspartame, but to share the serious problems arising consequent to folate deficiency, folate enzyme issues, and related vitamin and homocysteine issues. For a full criticism see today's post here (no www), healthsp.com/dangers-aspartame/. Grab it or copy it quick these posts are often removed or disallowed.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

[TimeForWasp]

sounds legit to me. I never heard of aspartame until this thread was posted.

[jegarst]

John, what are your thoughts on the article in post #72?

Let me begin with some history. I got into this whole issue, when this antiaspartame group traveled to my state and tried to get aspartame banned. I and my family had used aspartame for years, so as a toxicologist my first thought was to review its safety. I quickly realized aspartame was quite safe.

Their attempt to ban aspartame was to use a legal loophole that could allow our state environmental organization to take action against it. Their intent was to try to get it banned here, so they could take this issue to California. Well they tried and they couldn't even get it done in my state. They blamed the soft-drink lobby, but the adverse science just isn’t there. They have failed in each state they have tried this; Hawaii is the latest state, but they tried New Zealand later. Now they want to arouse public sentiment ahead of a September review by the European Union (EFSA). But nothing is new. I keep letting the people know the real truth. Remember relevant governments around the world have tested and retested this substance and none can find harm with it.

Aspartame is perhaps the safest substance known. All I am trying to do is explain to the public why these arguments are garbage. First, 92 side effects are just impossible for toxic substances; they rarely have more than a few; so something else is going on here--and a vitamin issue fits nicely.

Second, as to the Bowen and to the Rense website things. I'm sure he means well, but I'm also sure this is just a rant from another physician untrained in toxicology; like others it is without substance. Google 'James Bowen,aspartame', then look near the top (second post for me) at the quackbuster site. Open it and see the following "When reading anti-Aspartame propaganda, consider the source! Names like Betty Martini, James D. Bowen, Russell Blaylock, HJ Roberts, John Olney, and Ralph Walton are the ones to notice. If they are named favorably, beware!' Feel free to read more in that link; it is very illuminating.

The Rense website is in honor of the webmaster’s father, whom critics attributed his death to aspartame. This occurred before the 1998 folate fortification date, likely in the 1980’s-1990’s when folate deficiency was rampant. It would have been very easy to mistake cause and effect given this widespread folate deficiency, especially if he used alot of aspartame. People mistakenly blame aspartame for migraines, but migraines can be linked directly to issues with personal folate enzymes.

Third, I will say something about several points in the #72 post though. First is the cited Dr. Maria Alemany/Trocho Study (Google PubMed, go there, then type 9714421 in the search line). This work is the most complicated of all the aspartame critic studies. It suffers the same control error as the Soffritti study I mentioned, but here that it makes no difference--they were trying to push dose to near toxic concentrations to facilitate radiolabelled methanol binding isolation; then they could track the radiolabel down. I carefully studied this work. Unlike noted methanol expert Tephly's criticism (see 10503962), who just cited past work and arguments (see also the formate-folate issues in Tephly's 1991 review, 1997785), I carefully read this work. For a long time it just was just strange and not easily explained for me; their claim of tissue binding of methanol is serious. And they excluded the bound amino acid as being a normal amino acid, suggesting it was hitting a really abnormal target—that could make it a real issue. But with careful reading I eventually understood exactly what they had done and from that, then I actually discovered the likely amino acid target that they didn't or (I have to wonder) wouldn't identify. I hope to publish this, so I don’t wish to get specific here. But this it is important, because knowing that target amino acid actually proves the safety of aspartame under toxic-dosing conditions in rats.

Lastly, I need to comment on the Coumadin-aspartame thing; specifically this: 'The People’s Pharmacy did write, “Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet) is an artificial sweetener that may increase bleeding time, (Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Feb and May, 1998).' My thesis is that all side effects of aspartame are folate linked, so of course low folate (or related issues) should (if my theory is correct) increase bleeding time. And it does; PubMed 20206792 reports as their conclusion, “folic acid supplementation was associated with significantly increased formation [and] clearance of (S)-7-hydroxywarfarin.” Presumably then in people with folate deficiency, low folate or with folate enzyme issues, etc. that adversely impact folate function should decrease formation and clearance of this excreted metabolite and thus increase bleeding time of Coumadin exactly as reported.

Nothing unexpected here with Coumadin after all, but just another consistent piece to the same story! Again all adverse side effects ever claimed from aspartame are really due to personal issues revolving around their vitamins folate and B12 and related issues, not this sweetener.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

[JD10367]

Here's the simple answer: if you think it's dangerous, don't eat it. I think it's dangerous. I don't eat it. Many people don't think it's dangerous. They eat it. If I'm wrong, I end up giving the Splenda, Sweet-n-Low, and other manufacturers a bit more money. Or I end up a little fatter from real sugar. If they're wrong, they all die horrible contorted fiery deaths, and I will be left to go into their homes and take all their stuff (while sipping a non-aspartame diet soda).

Is it dangerous? I don't know. Yes, it supposedly breaks down into components that can be found in formaldehyde and nerve gas. But apparently the procedure to make Splenda involves a step that includes chlorine. :shrug: We're dealing with forces we still don't fully understand. (Hence all the issues of pharmaceuticals that are supposed to be wonder drugs, and six months later you see commercials that say, "Did you die taking Yufuktup^TM? If so, call the offices of Wee, Fukim, and Howe.")

If I understand the story correctly, saccharine was widely used in the earlier half of the 20th century. Then around mid-century, someone determined it was The Debbil. It was labeled a cancer-causing agent to the point that it had to have a pink "THIS WILL F***ING KILL YOU!!" warning on each Sweet-n-Low packet. It literally caused people to go develop other "safer" sweeteners like Nutrasweet. Then, not too long ago, a funny thing happened; they apparently figured out that, yes, saccharin does indeed cause cancer in lab rats... because it interacts with a certain protein found in rat pee. Saccharin to my knowledge has never caused one instance of human cancer. So they took the pink warning off the packets. Thus, Sweet-n-Low (previously labeled as dangerous) is now probably better for you than it's "safe" replacement, Nutrasweet (currently discussed as dangerous).

Sugar makes you fat. If you don't mind being fat, drink regular soda. Or, even better, just drink water.

[Saulbadguy]

Here's the simple answer: if you think it's dangerous, don't eat it. I think it's dangerous. I don't eat it. Many people don't think it's dangerous. They eat it. If I'm wrong, I end up giving the Splenda, Sweet-n-Low, and other manufacturers a bit more money. Or I end up a little fatter from real sugar. If they're wrong, they all die horrible contorted fiery deaths, and I will be left to go into their homes and take all their stuff (while sipping a non-aspartame diet soda).

Is it dangerous? I don't know. Yes, it supposedly breaks down into components that can be found in formaldehyde and nerve gas. But apparently the procedure to make Splenda involves a step that includes chlorine. :shrug: We're dealing with forces we still don't fully understand. (Hence all the issues of pharmaceuticals that are supposed to be wonder drugs, and six months later you see commercials that say, "Did you die taking Yufuktup^TM? If so, call the offices of Wee, Fukim, and Howe.")

If I understand the story correctly, saccharine was widely used in the earlier half of the 20th century. Then around mid-century, someone determined it was The Debbil. It was labeled a cancer-causing agent to the point that it had to have a pink "THIS WILL F***ING KILL YOU!!" warning on each Sweet-n-Low packet. It literally caused people to go develop other "safer" sweeteners like Nutrasweet. Then, not too long ago, a funny thing happened; they apparently figured out that, yes, saccharin does indeed cause cancer in lab rats... because it interacts with a certain protein found in rat pee. Saccharin to my knowledge has never caused one instance of human cancer. So they took the pink warning off the packets. Thus, Sweet-n-Low (previously labeled as dangerous) is now probably better for you than it's "safe" replacement, Nutrasweet (currently discussed as dangerous).

Sugar makes you fat. If you don't mind being fat, drink regular soda. Or, even better, just drink water.

You are really dumb.

[JD10367]

You are really dumb.

Your well-thought out response and opinion is duly noted, and serves to indicate your own level of intelligence.

[Saulbadguy]

jegarst - thoughts?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102618133


Bowing to consumer demand to ditch aspartame, PepsiCo will debut Diet Pepsi free of the sweetener in the U.S. later this year, the company confirmed Friday.

"Diet cola drinkers in the U.S. told us they wanted aspartame-free Diet Pepsi and we're delivering," said Seth Kaufman, senior vice president of Pepsi and Flavors Portfolio, PepsiCo North America Beverages, in a release. "We recognize that consumer demand is evolving and we're confident that cola-lovers will enjoy the crisp, refreshing taste of this new product."

Instead of aspartame, Diet Pepsi, Caffeine Free Diet Pepsi and Wild Cherry Diet Pepsi will be sweetened with a blend of artificial sweeteners sucralose and acesulfame potassium in the U.S. The new drinks will hit shelves in August.

Diet Pepsi held 4.3 percent of the total carbonated soft drink market in 2014, though its volume shrank 5.2 percent from the year before as customers have pared their consumption of diet heavyweights like Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi and Diet Mountain Dew, trade publication Beverage Digest reported.

[Silock]

jegarst - thoughts?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102618133

PR move. Just companies jumping on the bandwagon like they did when Atkins was big and when gluten-free became a fad.

[BucEyedPea]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17828671&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Govt site? ROFL But of course. "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help."

Can't be that the makers have their cronies on nich could there?

[Hammock Parties]

I don't miss diet soda at all. I've been getting my aspartame fix from crystal light. o:-)

[BucEyedPea]

Anything with so many contradictory facts, imo, is best avoided to be eaten.

Splenda is not any better. Eat as close as possible to nature for allowable food substances instead of fake food. No, I am not talking about eating peyote buttons or some such. Not everything natural should be ingested either. I talking about lab created substances for food. And you'll be safest.

I use stevia. But try not to eat too many things with sugar period as it's not great for you. It's also inflammatory tot the body. Substitutes do not wean you off the sweet-tooth. Eating right does.

[Silock]

Govt site? ROFL But of course. "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help."

Can't be that the makers have their cronies on nich could there?

Jesus Christ. Do you know ANYTHING about pubmed? Clearly not. These aren't government studies. They're just listed by the government on that site. It has at least abstracts from most peer reviewed journals.

[BucEyedPea]

Jesus Christ. Do you know ANYTHING about pubmed? Clearly not. These aren't government studies. They're just listed by the government on that site. It has at least abstracts from most peer reviewed journals.

It still means the govt supports it. So, I don't care.
Peer review is not a perfect system. There are still legit nutritionists that contradict their studies.
Aspartame has the most complaints to the FDA last I checked.

As a general rule, I tend to avoid govt recommendations or advice.

[BucEyedPea]

Food additives on the rise as FDA scrutiny wanes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/food-additives-on-the-rise-as-fda-scrutiny-wanes/2014/08/17/828e9bf8-1cb2-11e4-ab7b-696c295ddfd1_story.html

[jegarst]

PR move. Just companies jumping on the bandwagon like they did when Atkins was big and when gluten-free became a fad.

Completely agree with this analysis.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

[Fish]

Govt site? ROFL But of course. "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help."

Can't be that the makers have their cronies on nich could there?

You poor goofball. One of these days you should really learn how these things work...

[BucEyedPea]

You poor goofball. One of these days you should really learn how these things work...

Your use of ad hom is a logical fallacy. You can appeal to authority all you want too. It is afterall another logical fallacy.

I don't trust the govt to keep us well or happy. Period. More so than ever. They are incompetent and screw up more than they help.
That is my right— you health nazi.

[Fish]

Your use of ad hom is a logical fallacy. You can appeal to authority all you want too. It is afterall another logical fallacy.

I don't trust the govt to keep us well or happy. Period. More so than ever. They are incompetent and screw up more than they help.
That is my right— you health nazi.

There's a difference between appealing to authority and appealing to evidence.

The NCBI is not the government, and your inability to distinguish between the two is perfectly apparent.

[BucEyedPea]

There's a difference between appealing to authority and appealing to evidence.

That's not what you did.

The NCBI is not the government, and your inability to distinguish between the two is perfectly apparent.[/QUOTE]

I already saw it. I responded to it when I said the govt relies on it. That's enough for me. And it has the word "national" in it. Since I don't generally trust govt, as they are more incompetent than competent. I've already read the politics surrounding the approval of aspartame and it's ugly. Typical of govt institutions. Why can't you even read.

I've already said there's other competent and qualified nutritionists and health professionals that have contradictory evidence. FDA gets the most complaints about aspartame too. Contradictory evidence = stay away for me. Why can't you even read.

[Fish]

That's not what you did.

The NCBI is not the government, and your inability to distinguish between the two is perfectly apparent.

I already saw it. I responded to it when I said the govt relies on it. That's enough for me. And it has the word "national" in it. Since I don't generally trust govt, as they are more incompetent than competent. I've already read the politics surrounding the approval of aspartame and it's ugly. Typical of govt institutions. Why can't you even read.

I've already said there's other competent and qualified nutritionists and health professionals that have contradictory evidence. FDA gets the most complaints about aspartame too. Contradictory evidence = stay away for me. Why can't you even read.

Ohh, it had the word "National" in it, so that just sealed the deal? Why am I not surprised.....

[BucEyedPea]

Ohh, it had the word "National" in it, so that just sealed the deal? Why am I not surprised.....

Their address is listed as:
National Center for Biotechnology Information,
U.S. National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA

Also their connected to the National Institute of Health

I don't know if you're aware of it but there are many front groups masquerading as independent or private to crush dissent and promote propaganda on food additives and GMO's to dominate panels and discussions.

So no I won't trust it. Too bad for you.

And for you....
(just remove "All I want is you....to all I want is food."


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3dOx510kyOs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Silock]

What's not to trust? They are simply providing a list of studies done by private companies. They aren't conducting the studies.

[BucEyedPea]

Your own trusted source, says this on a web page, Fish:

Scientists are divided in their views on the issue of artificial sweetener safety. In scientific as well as in lay publications, supporting studies are often widely referenced while the opposing results are de-emphasized or dismissed.

Like I said, when there's contradictory facts, it's a flag to me...so I err on the side of safety. But it does admit it is "approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose." That right there doesn't help a person lose the sweet tooth, which they are better off taming imo.

Now notice this web addy for that page:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ ( Don't know why that stupid smiley is coming up must be the letters equate to the code or something in there?)

They're all on the same campus too.

This is what I use and I agree with them here:

...stevia sweeteners are safe for use by individuals with diabetes. Recent studies, including human studies on intake, metabolism and toxicity, support the safety of stevia sweetener. Based on the published research, independent scientific experts in both the U.S. and globally have concluded that stevia sweeteners are safe for people of all ages ... Stevia has a very low acute toxicity, and no allergic reactions to it seem to exist.

[BucEyedPea]

What's not to trust? They are simply providing a list of studies done by private companies. They aren't conducting the studies.

Because there's lists of places that contradict their studies. They are not the sole authority on the matter. Now I am presuming since it was used that it uses studies that claim it's safe. Because I am not about to read every study. Let's face it though, our govt's FDA approved it and it nearly did not get approved until people were taken out and replaced. Fishy. ( pun intended)

[Saulbadguy]

Completely agree with this analysis.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

nice!

I bet today has been a busy day for you.

[Fish]

Their address is listed as:
National Center for Biotechnology Information,
U.S. National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA

Also their connected to the National Institute of Health

I don't know if you're aware of it but there are many front groups masquerading as independent or private to crush dissent and promote propaganda on food additives and GMO's to dominate panels and discussions.

So no I won't trust it. Too bad for you.

And for you....
(just remove "All I want is you....to all I want is food."

I'm just pointing out that your reasoning method includes things like "National" being in the name, and mistrust of other unrelated entities. Instead of evaluating the merits of the evidence available. And this is in addition to your penchant for believing any anecdotal story you hear first hand from your crazy neighbor/chiropractor/shaman.

[Fish]

Because there's lists of places that contradict their studies. They are not the sole authority on the matter. Now I am presuming since it was used that it uses studies that claim it's safe. Because I am not about to read every study. Let's face it though, our govt's FDA approved it and it nearly did not get approved until people were taken out and replaced. Fishy. ( pun intended)

More to the point. Instead of actually perusing the scientific studies that have been independently done, you simply dismiss them. Because "Scary Government".......

Just for giggles, try and look at some of the actual studies first, compare the studies supporting and criticizing, and then make a decision after. See what happens...

[Silock]

Because there's lists of places that contradict their studies. They are not the sole authority on the matter. Now I am presuming since it was used that it uses studies that claim it's safe. Because I am not about to read every study. Let's face it though, our govt's FDA approved it and it nearly did not get approved until people were taken out and replaced. Fishy. ( pun intended)

There are studies on pubmed that contradict other studies they've listed. That's the nature of any kind of study, whether it's pharmaceutical, biological, sociological, or any other -ical.

You are simply speaking from a place of ignorance, but this can be remedied easily. All you have to do is search for studies you want to see on pubmed and you'll see that they exist. The bigger problem for your argument is that there is a preponderance of evidence and studies contrary to your position. You can accuse pubmed of selection bias, but you're doing the same thing by not even attempting to do research on the site and choosing your own biased sites instead.

Yes there are studies that show aspartame to be bad. But there are far more showing that it's not. You could do the same thing with aspirin, even though that's "natural." You can even find studies showing that stretching is bad for you. None of those studies mean anything definite, which is why reliability and repeatability is such a big deal.

[BucEyedPea]

What's not to trust? They are simply providing a list of studies done by private companies. They aren't conducting the studies.

Well, using this reasoning Common Core is a good program even though it was written by 14 people mostly from the testing industry and Bill Gates played a role in it's creation and thinks it rocks. The govt is using it so it follows who they relied on is not at all circumspect.

[Silock]

Well, using this reasoning Common Core is a good program even though it was written by 14 people mostly from the testing industry and Bill Gates played a role in it's creation and thinks it rocks. The govt is using it so it follows who they relied on is not at all circumspect.

What's it like in your ivory tower? Is the view tolerable, at least?

[Just Passin' By]

It still means the govt supports it. So, I don't care.
Peer review is not a perfect system. There are still legit nutritionists that contradict their studies.
Aspartame has the most complaints to the FDA last I checked.

As a general rule, I tend to avoid govt recommendations or advice.

It's exactly the same with dihydrogen monoxide.

[Fish]

Well, using this reasoning Common Core is a good program even though it was written by 14 people mostly from the testing industry and Bill Gates played a role in it's creation and thinks it rocks. The govt is using it so it follows who they relied on is not at all circumspect.

That's not using reasoning at all. Saying that studies have shown it to be safe is not the same thing as saying everything the government uses is good/safe.

For crying out loud....

[BucEyedPea]

There are studies on pubmed that contradict other studies they've listed. That's the nature of any kind of study, whether it's pharmaceutical, biological, sociological, or any other -ical.
So.

The page I read concluded it was safe though. That's what I am going by as far as this site is concerned. I doubt it’d change my opinion. See why below.


You are simply speaking from a place of ignorance,

How would you even know what I have studied or researched in the past?

Do you always make accusations assuming facts held in reality?
Meanwhile, you're implying your position is more scientific. Don't assume.
I studied before, in fact years ago starting with a certain doctor saying to avoid. I have read other studies even contradictory studies some put up by others when this was last discussed.

I have things to get done over re-reading re-researching and re-posting about it. That takes quite a bit of time to "re-research". This is a message board not school. In fact, I burned the food I am cooking after to answer you. Don’t tell me what I have to do. Don’t assume what I have done. Don't tell me how to spend my time.

I told you how I operate— too many experts disagreeing—best to stay away. That’s my operating basis on such things. You're the one claiming it as fact, when I am doing otherwise. So I suggest you stop telling me how I should take care of myself or what my opinion should be or evaluating me from a position of ignorance you yourself have, regarding what I have researched in the past.

If you haven’t done the same, then you are simply projecting here.

Have you read other studies from different sources besides the acceptable mainstream ones. And besides the one on this site? Have you read the politics as to how it got approved when Searle was going to be investigated for how they conducted their studies?

All you have to do is search for studies you want to see on pubmed and you'll see that they exist.
You’re not telling me something I don’t already know. Already seen the contrary views on the matter, as I said above.

Again, how about you study the other side? Without resorting to calling certain doctors as “quacks” even.


The bigger problem for your argument is that there is a preponderance of evidence and studies contrary to your position.

We disagree as do other experts. Just the fact that this gets the most complaints from the FDA is enough for me to avoid if I were to use one standard.

BTW I used to use it often. I didn't want to give it up...so felt it was safe. I didn't change my mind at the drop of a hat.

You can accuse pubmed of selection bias, but you're doing the same thing by not even attempting to do research on the site and choosing your own biased sites instead.

You make lots of assumptions for someone claiming to be more scientific. I didn’t say they were “biased” anywhere. That’s a strawman argument. I said if the govt uses them it’s suspect for me. I also, posted afterwards where I agreed with them.

Yes there are studies that show aspartame to be bad. But there are far more showing that it's not. You could do the same thing with aspirin, even though that's "natural." You can even find studies showing that stretching is bad for you. None of those studies mean anything definite, which is why reliability and repeatability is such a big deal.

Again you can’t even read what my position actually is. I said it’s best to avoid with contradictory facts. Quantity doesn’t matter for truth. If the whole world thinks the earth is flat then it's true using that reasoning. There are people who have weaker immune systems, different reactions to different substances and even allergies. Furthermore, as I posted before about clinical studies regarding food, is that other foods eaten when not in that environment can offset what other substances do.

One last time, where there is controversy I avoid the substance. I also go by my doctor who supports this view as she is into natural healing. Now I have my position and you have yours.

How about you now respond to others who don’t consider it safe?

EDITED: to fix spelling and some grammar

[BucEyedPea]

What's it like in your ivory tower? Is the view tolerable, at least?

'Cept that would be you and your govt approved experts who must never be disagreed with. Afterall, you're the one claiming it's safe as FACT. My position is that I avoid if too many contradictory facts.

The fact that you're using an ad hom, tells me you're ceding the argument as you can't refute that.

[BucEyedPea]

More to the point. Instead of actually perusing the scientific studies that have been independently done, you simply dismiss them. Because "Scary Government".......

Just for giggles, try and look at some of the actual studies first, compare the studies supporting and criticizing, and then make a decision after. See what happens...

You do know what ASSuming makes of you? An ass.

I've already done that. I also never said I made a decision just that where there are too many contradictory facts I think it's best to avoid. My doctor says it is a neuro-toxin though. Says the same about sucralose.

[BucEyedPea]

That's not using reasoning at all. Saying that studies have shown it to be safe is not the same thing as saying everything the government uses is good/safe.

For crying out loud....

I never said "everything" the government uses. I worded that the way I did because you knew you, Fish, would strawman it into an absolute.

Aha! Caught you.

Now I have stated my position. It's not going to change. Isn't it time you focus on a few others who said they don't think it's good in their own words. Or is does it make you feel tougher, like a man to only focus on a woman's position?

[Silock]

How would you even know what I have studied or researched in the past?

Because you make statements like this:

The page I read concluded it was safe though. That's what I am going by as far as this site is concerned.

A site with literally hundreds of thousands of studies and you're basing your opinion on ONE PAGE. FFS.


Do you always make accusations assume facts held in reality?

This makes no sense. Rephrase.

Meanwhile, you're implying your position is more scientific. Don't assume.
I studied before, in fact years ago starting with a certain doctor saying to avoid. I have read other studies even contradictory studies some put up by others when this was last discussed.

I'm not saying my position is more scientific. I'm saying it's more informed and more in line with the research. I'm well aware that there are contradictory studies and take them into consideration at all times.

Don't tell me how to spend my time.

I'm not telling you how to spend your time. I'm saying you're ignorant. You can change that if you want. I'm simply combating your ignorance with facts.

So I suggest you stop telling me how I should take care of myself or what my opinion should be or evaluating me from a position of ignorance you yourself have, regarding what I have researched in the past.

I'll stop when you stop telling people to do things and spreading misinformation.

Have you read other studies from different sources besides the acceptable mainstream ones. And besides the one on this site? Have you read the politics as to how it got approved when Searle was going to be investigated for how they conducted their studies?

Yup.

Again, how about you study the other side? Without resorting to calling certain doctors as “quacks” even.

Never did.

Just the fact that this gets the most complaints from the FDA is enough for me to avoid if I were to use one standard.

Again, when it comes to scientific scrutiny, this is irrelevant.

I didn’t say they were “biased” anywhere.

I never said you did. I said you were accusing them of SELECTION BIAS, which is totally different and exactly what you're doing.

Quantity doesn’t matter for truth. If the whole world thinks the earth is flat then it's true using that reasoning.

The difference is this is an opinion and the other is actually testable and studied.

How about you now respond to others who don’t consider it safe?

I do. A lot. You just don't read it because you rarely venture out of the DC forum.

[Silock]

'Cept that would be you and your govt approved experts who must never be disagreed with.

What part of "the government doesn't approve or disregard these studies" are you having trouble with? THESE ARE NOT GOVERNMENT STUDIES.

Afterall, you're the one claiming it's safe as FACT.

No, I said the preponderance of scientific studies says it's safe. That is my position until it is thoroughly disproven by science. It hasn't been.

The fact that you're using an ad hom, tells me you're ceding the argument as you can't refute that.

Pointing out that you are ill-informed isn't an ad hominem. It's simply a fact of your own admission. Ignorance is fixable. All you have to do is more reading. You can't fix stupid. I never said you were stupid.

[BucEyedPea]

Because you make statements like this:
A site with literally hundreds of thousands of studies and you're basing your opinion on ONE PAGE. FFS.

No I didn't say I based my position just on that, but material I read earlier. I am saying that site concludes it's safe. Otherwise it would not be used by the govt which approved it. In fact I changed my position from unsafe to avoid due to contradictory facts in an earlier thread.

You can't even read.

This makes no sense. Rephrase.

I did before you posted. Read the edit.
I'm not saying my position is more scientific. I'm saying it's more informed and more in line with the research. I'm well aware that there are contradictory studies and take them into consideration at all times.

In your opinion you're more informed. And I said you were inferring you were more scientific—not just your opinion.



I'm not telling you how to spend your time.

Oh yes you did.

I'm saying you're ignorant. You can change that if you want. I'm simply combating your ignorance with facts.

In other words, you're using ad hom again?

No the only facts are that experts disagree, studies contradict. The same site you're defending even admits that. You're the one claiming a fact. I am not. Please read with some comprehension.


I'll stop when you stop telling people to do things and spreading misinformation.
Oh, so that's it. You have to be right and no one can speak over your opinion adding theirs. So in others words, you're a health nazi too. You guys are all alike it seems.
The thread asked for views and advice. It is your opinion it is misinformation. It is the opinion of that site that aspartame is safe. It may be based on certain facts but it's still an opinion. You don't know the difference between the two.

I only said it was best avoid due to contradictory information by different health professionals and experts both highly qualified. That was my position on this matter. I didn't say anyone had to do it like your telling me to stop.

Never did.

I didn't say you did, I just said to do so without doing that. Some do that, like Fish.

Again, when it comes to scientific scrutiny, this is irrelevant.

Bullshit. If I want to use it, for my decisions then I will use just that. May I ask what part of "is enough for me to avoid" if I used just one standard?
BucEyedPea Just the fact that this gets the most complaints from the FDA is enough for me to avoid if I were to use one standard.


I never said you did. I said you were accusing them of SELECTION BIAS, which is totally different and exactly what you're doing.

I don't see it. I just said what their own conclusion was.

The difference is this is an opinion and the other is actually testable and studied.
No it is not an opinion. It is a fact that there is disagreement and contradictory facts, studies and information on it. Your side is not unassailable and absolute. That is only what I am contending. Keep using strawmen arguments though.

I do. A lot. You just don't read it because you rarely venture out of the DC forum.
I was referring to in this thread. I've barely had a moment to read what others you responded to as it's taken so much time to answer a single response of yours.

If you want to think aspartame is safe, then use it. If I want to avoid it due to expert disagreements, who I trust as a source, then I will do that and I will speak my mind about doing that and why.

[BucEyedPea]

I'm done with the argument as it's not going anywhere. Agree to disagree because I have other things to attend to now.

I also do not call for a ban on it. Consumer should make their own decision, buyer beware and all that.

[lewdog]

BucEyedPea still taking her nutrition advice from 1990's Ladies Home Journal.

[SeeingRed]

Here's my opinion on it. Aspertame was not approved by the FDA and I beleive the head of the FDA even said something along the lines of you may as well feed people poison. Then Reagan ran for office and had one major supporter - the manufacturer of aspartame. The day after he was in office he installed a new FDA head who immediately reopened the aspartame discussion. There was a 5 person panel to approve it. Once it was obvious it was going to be denied, he installed a 6th person. It was a tie vote and the head of the FDA was the tiebreaker. I'm sorry, but when you need to resort to political games to get your product approved, I'm gonna bet you aren't all that safe.

is this all true?

[BucEyedPea]

BucEyedPea still taking her nutrition advice from 1990's Ladies Home Journal.

Wut? I changed my position from not safe to —too many contradictory reports. So err on the safe side because of our last discussion on it. At least take some credit. It was you not the Ladies Home Journal. LMAO

I don't Ladies Home Journal or any woman's magazines. Last we discussed I said I would trust my health care professional who is trained in nutrition.

[BucEyedPea]

Did you read the thread lewdog? Apparently not!

[SAUTO]

You really just had a 19 minute conversation with yourself, didn't you?

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

You really just had a 19 minute conversation with yourself, didn't you?

I do that all the time :drool:

[SAUTO]

I do that all the time :drool:

I don't want to know what's really going on in there.

That's why I don't talk to my self

[BucEyedPea]

I respond to as many of these false posts as is feasible. FYI, I am a retired professor from a major university; I have never made one penny writing these posts either, unlike all the critics who write books, etc. etc. I am committed not just to the truth about aspartame, but to share the serious problems arising consequent to folate deficiency, folate enzyme issues, and related vitamin and homocysteine issues. For a full criticism see today's post here (no www), healthsp.com/dangers-aspartame/. Grab it or copy it quick these posts are often removed or disallowed.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

I thought I would google your name. You certainly do get around the internet on this issue. I read quite a bit of libertarian literature, and I happen to be an acquaintance of Karen de Coster, a major libertarian who is published, who's site you appeared on. She's very into natural health. This was just one of the links that came up with your name.

Just thought it was interesting to read the exchange between you two on her "Another New Spin on Aspartame." So am posting it for others to see.

http://karendecoster.com/another-new-spin-on-aspartame.html

[BucEyedPea]

And you appear again on Medical News Today:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/opinions/94087

and here:

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/aspartame-with-milk-may-trigger-brain-seizures/

[lewdog]

Did you read the thread lewdog? Apparently not!

No I didn't because I know how to read peer reviewed journal articles that contain research.

[Silock]

In other words, you're using ad hom again?

No, because I'm not discrediting you as a person. I'm saying your position is flawed based on the fact that you are ill-informed. There's a difference.

No the only facts are that experts disagree, studies contradict. The same site you're defending even admits that.

Studies WILL contradict. That's why you have to use your brain and determine what's important.

Oh, so that's it. You have to be right and no one can speak over your opinion adding theirs. So in others words, you're a health nazi too. You guys are all alike it seems.

No, I'm saying that as long as there is ignorance being spread, I'm going to combat it. I'm more like a health Batman. I'm not the kick in the ass you need, but I'm the one you deserve, and so forth.

You don't know the difference between the two.

You don't know the difference between science and opinion.

Keep using strawmen arguments though.

Keep accusing me of using the only two logical fallacies with which you're aware. I'm doing no such thing.

[Silock]

I thought I would google your name. You certainly do get around the internet on this issue. I read quite a bit of libertarian literature, and I happen to be an acquaintance of Karen de Coster, a major libertarian who is published, who's site you appeared on. She's very into natural health. This was just one of the links that came up with your name.

Just thought it was interesting to read the exchange between you two on her "Another New Spin on Aspartame." So am posting it for others to see.

http://karendecoster.com/another-new-spin-on-aspartame.html

LOL @ that "exchange."

One side using facts and science to make an argument and the other side going "Nu uh! Because GOVERNMENT!" That looks super familiar.

Her response is an absolute joke. John was being way more diplomatic than she deserves.

[007]

Face it, everything you ingest is eventually going to kill you.

[Don Corlemahomes]

Dr. Gerst,

I found a previous post of yours on another message board that has relevance here. Hope you don't mind me posting it.

Following are facts people don't understand about aspartame. Stated health issues like headaches may well be associated with aspartame, but to suggest that aspartame causes them could not be further from the truth. These issues likely reside in preexisting personal issues. Let me explain.

First, the fundamentals of toxicology (the science of poisons) say “everything is toxic” and dose alone separates a food/drug from a poison. For example botulinum toxin, perhaps the most toxic substance known, is used extensively in cosmetic procedures. High toxicity cyanide found in plant products we all consume is, however, innocuous at those doses. In contrast low-toxicity water drowns hundreds yearly. Any claim a chemical substance is “toxic” or poison is by itself is MEANINGLESS. Such claims MUST include a specific toxic response and specific dose. Aspartame critics cannot do this!

Second, aspartame is GI-degraded to its three components; they are more abundant in common foods and two are even essential for life. Food-borne methanol whatever its source is oxidized to formaldehyde and then formate. Formate is recycled (reduced) by the folate-B12 vitamins into methyl groups used to synthesize (thymine, in DNA), methylate (regulate) DNA, and detoxify truly-toxic homocysteine. Phenylalanine is used to biosynthesize epinephrine, etc. These ingredients are simply not a toxicological issue at the allowed doses of aspartame.

Third, aspartame has been extensively studied; adverse claims have been consistently disproven time after time, one of the latest being last year in New Zealand. Anti-aspartame arguments fostered by internet conspiracy theorists, who profit from books, false detoxification kits, etc., all predate 1998. In 1998 in the USA and in Canada, and Chile folate vitamin supplementation was mandated for cereal grain products, because of population-wide deficiency. That was not done in Europe, however.

So any health connections for aspartame most likely reside instead in personal folate deficiency (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19005123 or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18208952) or related underlying biochemical issues (well-known folate- or related enzyme polymorphisms, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylenetetrahydrofolate_reductase). These personal problems are often mistaken for arguments against aspartame, because they subside after aspartame use is ended. But really aspartame was the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back, not the tons of cargo already there.’ Of course folate (and B12 status) or associated polymorphisms are a major 'cargo'. High blood homocysteine (a known health issue) presents yet another preexisting straw, but it is often evidence of folate issues. Other cargos include caffeine and alcohol, which provide twice the formaldehyde/formate of aspartame (per molelcule) or act to inhibit folate-mediate enzyme reactions (fetal alcohol syndrome), respectively.

Aspartame critics cite every practically health issue under the sun as being connected to aspartame, the latest of which is diabetes. But like virtually all the other claimed issues, aspartame linkage to diabetes is highly suspect too for the same reason. Two highly publicized presentations (one in humans the other in diabetic mice) both neglected even to consider folate status in their subjects. Folate deficiency is a substantial issue with regard to insulin resistance and insulin issues (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=folate%2Cinsulin; over 345 references). And obese/diabetic mice have serious known issues with folate, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=folate%2Cdiabetes%20mice. It is therefore very likely that people who think think they are affected by aspartame are affected by real medical (folate, B12) vitamin issues, not aspartame per se.

So in summary, aspartame is perfectly safe used as recommended, but issues with it are likely because of hidden, but real risks from the now-known and potentially population-wide folate deficiency or related enzyme issues that are also known to be connected to many types of cancer, as well as migraines and other acute issues.

http://csn.cancer.org/node/227475

[Saulbadguy]

I thought I would google your name. You certainly do get around the internet on this issue. I read quite a bit of libertarian literature, and I happen to be an acquaintance of Karen de Coster, a major libertarian who is published, who's site you appeared on. She's very into natural health. This was just one of the links that came up with your name.

Just thought it was interesting to read the exchange between you two on her "Another New Spin on Aspartame." So am posting it for others to see.

http://karendecoster.com/another-new-spin-on-aspartame.html

Repost.

[Hammock Parties]

What is "dextrose with maltodextrin?" I put this in my tea every day. Also has calcium saccharin.

http://ct.mywebgrocer.com/legacy/productimagesroot/DJ/8/309818.jpg

[Pablo]

Drink your tea and coffee black like a man, Clay.

[Fish]

I thought I would google your name. You certainly do get around the internet on this issue. I read quite a bit of libertarian literature, and I happen to be an acquaintance of Karen de Coster, a major libertarian who is published, who's site you appeared on. She's very into natural health. This was just one of the links that came up with your name.

Just thought it was interesting to read the exchange between you two on her "Another New Spin on Aspartame." So am posting it for others to see.

http://karendecoster.com/another-new-spin-on-aspartame.html

Her response is a perfect example of your flawed reasoning approach..

John – your comment, “aspartame is approved by the regulatory agencies of 90+ nations worldwide” will have no meaning to libertarians, here, who understand the depravity and coercive attributes of politics. In fact, that statement works against you. All of you so-called “experts” claim the other “experts” are wrong. But when you use government approval for legitimacy and support, I garner that you have been misinformed and fooled by the politics of science your whole career.

Your expertise may be chem/pharma/toxicology, but my specialty is free markets/politics of food/Big Pharma/Industrial Food Machine politics.

The Dr. listed the number of independent regulatory agencies that have approved it worldwide. But she simply ignored all of that. Completely dismissed it. Why? Because of government mistrust. Not any rebuttal of the data or studies or the consensus of those studies. Not any mention of any study at all. She even goes on to say the Dr. may be an expert in this specific field, but her specialty is free market/politics of food/etc. Why on earth would she completely dismiss everything the expert says, on the basis that her expertise is something different? Does that seriously make sense to you?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

I recommend weaning yourself off of aspertame, and in to some quality coconut water.

[srvy]

What is "dextrose with maltodextrin?" I put this in my tea every day. Also has calcium saccharin.

http://ct.mywebgrocer.com/legacy/productimagesroot/DJ/8/309818.jpg

Rat poison?

Might go good on that bug your supposed to eat.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Rat poison?

Might go good on that bug your supposed to eat.

Rat poison is Coumadin, which was originally discovered when a farmer in Wisconsin showed up to the University with a bucket of cow's blood and some moldy hay and wanted to know why when his cows scraped up against a barbed wire fence they bled out.

It tuns out that coumarin, which is a chemical that gives clover its sweet smell, can be metabolized by certain bacteria, and when done undergoes a 1,4 alpha addition, linking two molecules together.

Thus, a sweet smelling chemical becomes rat poison, and the best anticoagulant we have.

[srvy]

Aspertame is probably safe in moderation but who could for told Americans would guzzle the equivalent of a 16 gallon keg a day of the stuff. I can remember when on a hot day a survey party of 3 could drain a Gott water keg by mid afternoon. We would take the lid off to let ice melt to water just to have more liquid. Then 7/11 started selling a 48 oz insulated drinking cup that came with refills discounted if you had that cup. Quiktrip followed suit with a 64 ounce. Younger pups would fill one those in morning and instead water drink that and refill at lunch. Soon the water keg was hardly touched. We would pour off 3/4 every morning and fill it up. I asked guys doesnt all that sugar make you sick on a hot humid day and get the no man its diet. I remember one the young guys in his 20s was down with kidney stones. That brought him to his senses hardly ever seen him not drinking water after that.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

What is "dextrose with maltodextrin?" I put this in my tea every day. Also has calcium saccharin.

http://ct.mywebgrocer.com/legacy/productimagesroot/DJ/8/309818.jpg

Sugar substitute with a packing agent so that it doesn't break down before consumption.